A contract that was written and signed with the understanding that a CBA exists. That "promise" had conditions that are no longer being met.

This is all ridiculous, the players need to drop the charade and take a 50/50 split and be done with it. Why should the players cave? because half the teams are losing money and that obviously isn't sustainable. If every team was very profitable and the players were arguing for a 5% raise then I would agree with them, but that's not the case. At this point it's about who has the least to lose can afford the longest hold out, and it's the owners for now.

My point was that these owners, ok maybe not all, fully knowing their objective is that sign for more than they are worth now knowing we won't have to pay that full amount, to me that is fraud! Let em go back to being FA and let's see what the owners cough up now knowing what everyone knows. Just seems deceptive.

Without increased revenue sharing, the owners will be back here in 6 years saying that 50/50 is untenable and they have to go to 45/55. And so it will continue indefinitely.

If that's what it takes to have a sustainable league fine. I personally don't think it will come to that, right now a 43/57 split is leaving 20 teams in the red at the end of the year, if a 50/50 can reduce that down say under 7 teams we won't see another lockout. If that's not enough then so be it, this is a business at the end of the day and it isn't healthy when some many teams can't break even.

Sure revenue sharing is one mechanism to help, it's not the solution. The difference between the latest owners offer and players in $40 million WRT rev sharing, the difference between total percent of HRR WRT how much the players will take is $500 million.

My point was that these owners, ok maybe not all, fully knowing their objective is that sign for more than they are worth now knowing we won't have to pay that full amount, to me that is fraud! Let em go back to being FA and let's see what the owners cough up now knowing what everyone knows. Just seems deceptive.

I think that's a hard argument to make, guys like Parise, Suter, Weber got a ton of money in terms of signing bonus, not exactly the move you make if you are banking on the CBA to lower the value of the contracts after the fact. Also consider the NHL just offered to honor those salaries in full.

I think that's a hard argument to make, guys like Parise, Suter, Weber got a ton of money in terms of signing bonus, not exactly the move you make if you are banking on the CBA to lower the value of the contracts after the fact. Also consider the NHL just offered to honor those salaries in full.

If that's what it takes to have a sustainable league fine. I personally don't think it will come to that, right now a 43/57 split is leaving 20 teams in the red at the end of the year, if a 50/50 can reduce that down say under 7 teams we won't see another lockout. If that's not enough then so be it, this is a business at the end of the day and it isn't healthy when some many teams can't break even.

Sure revenue sharing is one mechanism to help, it's not the solution. The difference between the latest owners offer and players in $40 million WRT rev sharing, the difference between total percent of HRR WRT how much the players will take is $500 million.

A lockout is how this works. The owners don't want a 'working league'. They want a league that makes them more money. So that means lockouts, because you can't just take from the players without knocking out games and the threat of taking away even more games. I'll bet anyone that there's a lockout at the end of the next CBA.

I agree with you, but it became a semantic thing. The owners agreed to pay every dollar of the contracts, just deferring the payments above 50% HRR to payments over time. That's obviously a net value drop to the players contract, so while the owners were saying "we're going to pay you every dollar" the players rightfully heard the finish of "but some of the dollars will be in cheaper future dollars".

If the NHL and NHLPA wanted to try and fix that, they could probably add a yearly growth rate to the deffered portions. The owners would probably do that to get the 50/50 locked in at the expense of slightly higher future payments and the players would get the full, or at least fuller, value of their current contracts as a win.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

A lockout is how this works. The owners don't want a 'working league'. They want a league that makes them more money. So that means lockouts, because you can't just take from the players without knocking out games and the threat of taking away even more games. I'll bet anyone that there's a lockout at the end of the next CBA.

I don't believe that 20 teams finished in the red last year.

Forbes had 22 teams with a revenue loss last year, maybe they aren't calculating all sources of income, maybe it's a little less like 15 teams losing money. Even that is totally unsustainable. Of course they want to make more money but they aren't stupid. If 25 teams are making a profit they aren't going to piss away a half season or even a full season to squeeze a few more percents out. They would be in the same boat the players are in now where the lost revenue from missed games starts to eat away at the profits they would make over the long term anyway.

If 23+ teams are back in the black by the end of the next CBA I will gladly take the bet that there wont be a lockout... a strike on the other hand..

If 23+ teams are back in the black by the end of the next CBA I will gladly take the bet that there wont be a lockout... a strike on the other hand..

lol there's always going to be some excuse with this Bettman/this group of owners and the Fehrs involved. It really is amazing hockey's the only sport that constantly goes through this though. Can someone explain to me why the NFL hasn't missed games since 1987, MLB hasn't missed games since 1995, the NBA had 66 and 50-game seasons in its two lockouts while the NHL's had 48-game, 0-game and who knows how many game seasons during the last three CBA negotiations? It's a total joke.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 20 October 2012 - 09:15 AM.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

squishy: Again, with the owners plan, they are right back in this boat in 6 years, with another lockout, more givebacks, and so forth. This is not about teams not making a profit - this is about the big-market teams trying to grind out more profits. Who cares if your team 'loses' 2 million dollars when its value goes up by 5?

squishy: Again, with the owners plan, they are right back in this boat in 6 years, with another lockout, more givebacks, and so forth. This is not about teams not making a profit - this is about the big-market teams trying to grind out more profits. Who cares if your team 'loses' 2 million dollars when its value goes up by 5?

exactly its the owners of the big teams running this thing... some teams really couldnt afford a full season lockouts in terms of... they are trying to built a fanbase and its not the best way to go obviously... im sure there's a few who would rather be playing right now but the owners from the big teams are running the show

We're going to have a "lockout" after every CBA expires until the KHL or a European league can be competitive with the NHL in terms of salary/benefits and is a threat to sign away talent. The best case scenario though is for a lockout similar to the NFL lockout where no games are missed. The only way to avoid missing games is with a revenue sharing plan that makes all NHL teams profitable and want to avoid missing regular season games (like the NFL). Currently a lot of NHL teams don't mind missing out on regular season games since they supposedly break even or lose money on the regular season, at least that's their position.

At least that's how it looks to me, although the profits the NFL enjoys are probably no where close to being achievable by the NHL and that won't be a great deterrent. Basically until European hockey competes with the NHL for talent I think fans are gonna have to suffer these protracted CBA negotiations every 6-7 years.

Colorado source? Don't know what you're talking about. It's just how I see this playing out. Given how Bettman played it after the PA offers, both sides are going to make it look like they aren't interested in negotiating for a while.

Colorado source? Don't know what you're talking about. It's just how I see this playing out. Given how Bettman played it after the PA offers, both sides are going to make it look like they aren't interested in negotiating for a while.